- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:48:11 -0700
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > hi Maciej, > >> For reference, the HTML5 spec explicitly allows extensions to render specific elements nonconforming (emphasis added): > > what i meant was not about whether it was technically doable in HTML5, > but whether it was practically meaningful. if the default for HTMl5 > validation is that <hgroup> is conforming. The validator's default settings include some extension specs, and is likely to include more over time. It is possible they could include this one too, if it achieves sufficient consensus in the WG, and credibility in the broader web community. Conversely, if hgroup was an extension already, it would likely still end up part of the default set if it's seen as widely implemented and credible. So the extension issue is separate from the validator issue. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:48:52 UTC